This route has been stripped and the bolts ground off. This is pretty aggravating. It was a fun short route and not sure why someone would vandalize it. Does anyone know anything about it? I would love to get my hands on whoever did it.

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy. Once you get to 5.10, the quality goes up considerably, but really good 5.10 sport routes are not exactly common.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy. Once you get to 5.10, the quality goes up considerably, but really good 5.10 sport routes are not exactly common.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

The Gunks see worse crowds than anywhere else I have ever climbed. I have yet to find a sub 5.10 sport route there.

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy. Once you get to 5.10, the quality goes up considerably, but really good 5.10 sport routes are not exactly common.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

The Gunks see worse crowds than anywhere else I have ever climbed. I have yet to find a sub 5.10 sport route there.

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy. Once you get to 5.10, the quality goes up considerably, but really good 5.10 sport routes are not exactly common.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

The Gunks see worse crowds than anywhere else I have ever climbed. I have yet to find a sub 5.10 sport route there.

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy. Once you get to 5.10, the quality goes up considerably, but really good 5.10 sport routes are not exactly common.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

The Gunks see worse crowds than anywhere else I have ever climbed. I have yet to find a sub 5.10 sport route there.

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy. Once you get to 5.10, the quality goes up considerably, but really good 5.10 sport routes are not exactly common.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, maybe, maybe not.

The Gunks see worse crowds than anywhere else I have ever climbed. I have yet to find a sub 5.10 sport route there.

Imagine the gunks if everything was rap bolted.

Why just imagine?

Jay

Oah. Mah. Gawd. There iz just some things you can't joke about, Jay. The Gunks is serious business. If the little kiddies see a adult joking about it maybe the wont get it and they will get the wrong idea and bolt the whole gunks. All of it, man. What if the bolted all of it before they realised you were just kidding?

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

The rationale for that is not as clear to me as it apparently is to you. Perhaps you could explain.

There are a few reasons. Most sub 5.10 sport routes are not really any fun. There are a few that are, but by and large, the quality of sub 5.10 sport is pretty poor. They are usually short, low angle, or chossy.

Maybe you didn't learn to lead climb outside on 5.8s and 5.9s, but I sure did, and I know quite a few good, respectful people who have. Just because you take no pleasure in the sub 5.10 climbs doesn't make them useless. It just makes them the first step to leading comfortably outside.

Crowds, on the other hand, I agree with. Sandrock doesn't need anymore guided groups than it is already subjected to. However, they typically stick to Jaws Block with its accessibility to easily set topropes.

And if worse comes to worst, you could always give the groups a show as you send their toprope on lead!

I didn't do it, but I don't think it is such a bad idea. Climbing would be much better off if all the sport routes, sans the classics, under 5.10 or maybe 5.11 were chopped.

I wish I was born pulling in the 5.12-5.13 range so that I could rock climb too. O well, I guess I will have to settle for not being a d-bag on the internet.

You don't have to climb 5.12 or .13, just 5.10. If you climb trad, you can climb anything you want.

Hey. I've got another great idea on how we can make rock climbing really inaccessible to beginners to make sure we never have to share all that lovely rock tha is NOT OUR. Let's make a website and pretend to offer help, but when gumbys ask us any questions we can just flame them, tell them they are going to die and let them know that they are generally not welcomed at "our" crags. O wait. Rc.com beat us to it.

It would really be nice if you were to remember back when you started climbing. Someone went out of their way to help you learn. Someone bolted beginner routes you could climb. And someone actually encouraged you to climb. Try paying the favour forward.

It would really be nice if you were to remember back when you started climbing. Someone went out of their way to help you learn. Someone bolted beginner routes you could climb. And someone actually encouraged you to climb. Try paying the favour forward.

That's not necessarily true of every climber. While I don't agree with johnwesely that we should run around chopping every sport route under 10 or 11, I wholeheartedly agree that, in most American cases anyway, moderate sport climbs eventually equal overcrowding. I'd love it if people bolting moderate routes thought about things like parking and the opinions of land managers before doing so.

To be fair, I've bolted a couple moderate sport climbs in my day (but only in places that can handle the traffic) and I've taken beginners to crags with moderate sport climbs that probably can handle the eventual crags.

Again, I'm not advocating the removal of all such routes, just some forethought on the parts of developers.

Fair point. I just get sick of coming to RC.com and every second post is about how noobs are ruining the world and should all fuck off and die. There are a lot of things to consider when setting new routes. A lot of responsibilities that many most climbers would not think of. At the same time we were all beginners once I think it would serve some people well to remember that.

Fair point. I just get sick of coming to RC.com and every second post is about how noobs are ruining the world and should all fuck off and die. There are a lot of things to consider when setting new routes. A lot of responsibilities that many most climbers would not think of. At the same time we were all beginners once I think it would serve some people well to remember that.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, if you think crowds are bad for climbers, you should probably start by dissuading the one climber you yourself are guaranteed to influence.

You don't like crowds, wanna spread impact so we don't get the place closed? Start by not going yourself.

If all it took to protect an area from uninformed jackasses ruining it for the rest of us is just not telling them about it, the world would truly be a better place. But I've seen what just-shut-up-already as a managment solution does to places. We will lose free camping in Ten Sleep, probably within the next 2 years, because of it. We got a hideous parking lot in Indian Creek because of it.

Its like teen pregnancy. By just telling folks not to go (but not, you know, how to act if they still go) we compound the issue.

The other reason is crowds. Sub 5.10 sport routes are probably the key driver of crowding at the crags because the barrier to entry is so low. Crowds are bad for access. What is bad for access is bad for climbers.

Well, if you think crowds are bad for climbers, you should probably start by dissuading the one climber you yourself are guaranteed to influence.

You don't like crowds, wanna spread impact so we don't get the place closed? Start by not going yourself.

If all it took to protect an area from uninformed jackasses ruining it for the rest of us is just not telling them about it, the world would truly be a better place. But I've seen what just-shut-up-already as a managment solution does to places. We will lose free camping in Ten Sleep, probably within the next 2 years, because of it. We got a hideous parking lot in Indian Creek because of it.

Its like teen pregnancy. By just telling folks not to go (but not, you know, how to act if they still go) we compound the issue.

I am not telling people not to go. Everyone has just as much right as everyone else if the land is public. I just think the barrier to entry should be higher than 5.8 sport.

And I'm saying that there is no acceptable minimum grade for outdoor climbing that isn't ripped, potentially uncomfortably so, from the speaker's own ass.

I agree, a 5.4 sport route is probably a waste of bolts. That doesn't mean that they should be explicitly prohibited, either officially or by the community at large. If we just say "all routes must be 5.9 (for instance) to deserve bolts", then two things will happen: a lot of otherwise good (not great, or classic, but good) routes will get put up at 5.8 or under that are straight up death routes for anyone trying to break into that grade AND you'll see pretty serious grade creep as more 5.8, 5.7, even 5.6 routes get called 5.9 just to fit this arbitrary cutoff.

If you develop routes and are concerned about crowding, then don't develop a crag that will have that problem, at all. Don't put in the bolts for harder projects, don't put in the bolts for warmups. Don't develop the crag period.

You're arguing for a universe where climbers who can't onsite at a certain level don't count. My claim is that whatever the cutoff, it will be arbitrary, needlessly elitist, and counterproductive.

And I'm saying that there is no acceptable minimum grade for outdoor climbing that isn't ripped, potentially uncomfortably so, from the speaker's own ass.

I agree, a 5.4 sport route is probably a waste of bolts. That doesn't mean that they should be explicitly prohibited, either officially or by the community at large. If we just say "all routes must be 5.9 (for instance) to deserve bolts", then two things will happen: a lot of otherwise good (not great, or classic, but good) routes will get put up at 5.8 or under that are straight up death routes for anyone trying to break into that grade AND you'll see pretty serious grade creep as more 5.8, 5.7, even 5.6 routes get called 5.9 just to fit this arbitrary cutoff.

If you develop routes and are concerned about crowding, then don't develop a crag that will have that problem, at all. Don't put in the bolts for harder projects, don't put in the bolts for warmups. Don't develop the crag period.

You're arguing for a universe where climbers who can't onsite at a certain level don't count. My claim is that whatever the cutoff, it will be arbitrary, needlessly elitist, and counterproductive.

On behalf of all the fish in the barrel, I'm formally asking Johnwesely to put away his gun.

And I'm saying that there is no acceptable minimum grade for outdoor climbing that isn't ripped, potentially uncomfortably so, from the speaker's own ass.

I agree, a 5.4 sport route is probably a waste of bolts. That doesn't mean that they should be explicitly prohibited, either officially or by the community at large. If we just say "all routes must be 5.9 (for instance) to deserve bolts", then two things will happen: a lot of otherwise good (not great, or classic, but good) routes will get put up at 5.8 or under that are straight up death routes for anyone trying to break into that grade AND you'll see pretty serious grade creep as more 5.8, 5.7, even 5.6 routes get called 5.9 just to fit this arbitrary cutoff.

If you develop routes and are concerned about crowding, then don't develop a crag that will have that problem, at all. Don't put in the bolts for harder projects, don't put in the bolts for warmups. Don't develop the crag period.

You're arguing for a universe where climbers who can't onsite at a certain level don't count. My claim is that whatever the cutoff, it will be arbitrary, needlessly elitist, and counterproductive.

On behalf of all the fish in the barrel, I'm formally asking Johnwesely to put away his gun.

Just because the fish are easy, does not mean you can take away my right to shoot them.